If you set parental controls on your own teen’s device, all you’re doing is isolating them from their peers and making them the kid with the weird parent who doesn’t let them post on tik tok.
Social media isn’t what it was when we were growing up. It’s designed to prey on them the same way slot machines create gambling addictions.
I’m no puritan but I do truly believe banning kids from social media and restricting teens at a legislative level would be a net benefit for society. Same as alcohol or drugs.
Underage drinking is still more common than it should be, despite strict laws. The point is, it doesn’t do any good to go after the consumer, regardless of age. in order to make a meaningful impact, legislation would have to destroy or significantly neuter social media companies altogether, globally. Anything else will be a disappointment.
The more effective way to reduce these harms is through social/cultural change, but that’s easier said than done.
Underage drinking is still more common than it should be,
Sure, but it’s significantly lower than legal drinking.
We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn’t agree with so it didn’t work.
I think you’d find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they’re unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.
It will be effective if the prohibition takes the form of these companies no longer existing, at least in their current form, OR if the majority turn against them, making them irrelevant. An age gate won’t do anything, not on its own
If you set parental controls on your own teen’s device, all you’re doing is isolating them from their peers and making them the kid with the weird parent who doesn’t let them post on tik tok.
Social media isn’t what it was when we were growing up. It’s designed to prey on them the same way slot machines create gambling addictions.
I’m no puritan but I do truly believe banning kids from social media and restricting teens at a legislative level would be a net benefit for society. Same as alcohol or drugs.
Prohibition didn’t work for drugs either, so why would it work here? Why do we need to learn that lesson over and over again?
I didn’t realize it was common for 14 year olds to drink alcohol and take heroin where you’re from…
Underage drinking is still more common than it should be, despite strict laws. The point is, it doesn’t do any good to go after the consumer, regardless of age. in order to make a meaningful impact, legislation would have to destroy or significantly neuter social media companies altogether, globally. Anything else will be a disappointment.
The more effective way to reduce these harms is through social/cultural change, but that’s easier said than done.
Sure, but it’s significantly lower than legal drinking.
We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn’t agree with so it didn’t work.
I think you’d find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they’re unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.
It will be effective if the prohibition takes the form of these companies no longer existing, at least in their current form, OR if the majority turn against them, making them irrelevant. An age gate won’t do anything, not on its own
lol are you serious
Limiting total time spent on something is one of the parental control options. It isn’t just blocking things 100%.
“I only let my child smoke crack 3 hours a day”